National Anthem Solution

[bmur66]

17 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Have cookouts and drink beer.

May as well. Obviously they won't be visiting any cemeteries

17 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Are people honestly this stupid? People have said nine million times it has nothing to do with the military.  In fact, Kaepernick was sitting and switched to kneeling after talking to Nate Boyer, who served.  Stop being dumb.

 

And it’s hilarious all the fake patriots that have suddenly emerged.  I’m a better American than you BS.  Forcing people to do something is stuff they do in North Korea.  I love how this idiot in office has conned his “base” into thinking he gives 2 craps about anyone but himself.  Patriotism isn’t forcing people to salute the flag.  It’s about making people want to salute the flag.

 

i won’t take a knee but it’s sad that some people can’t have empathy others.  It’s also pathetic that people had no problem with the scumbags who have been in the nfl for year but yet this is where they draw their line.

That’s what real Americans do!!!

Hey Ladies man. Freedom isn't free. One day out of the year we honor veterans that died protecting your right to be a dickhead. So go drink your Pabst Blue Ribbon and grill your corn king hot dogs but try to have some respect for one day will ya?

Edited May 26, 2018 by bmur66

[row_33]

I’m present to watch a football game.

 

its getting to be like going to an art museum and I’m told I have to read a 12 page manifesto to “understand” the work

 

oh don’t worry, I understood the work in a microsecond

 

 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

What other employer gets money from the DOD?

 

But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully.

 

And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act  in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. 

 

For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment.

 

But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades?

 

But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with  numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein).

 

So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential.

 

Thank you. Good night.

 

My employer gets money from the DoD. So, everything beyond that with your premise is flawed and ridiculous. 

 

As ridiculous as every morning we have a prayer in 16 different religions, must say the pledge of allegiance for all member countries of our make up and then drink a beer for America.

 

But, 99% of internet statistics are meaningless and those that aren't sourced go even higher.

8 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

The NFL is all about protecting their image. Expect banning players from staying in the locker room next year, & a concession stand shut down for 5 minutes to honor Old Glory! 

The players are all about themselves, too. As a marketing ploy their face is their money maker. Having themselves be seen without the facemask is yuge. If that means more time in front of the camera protesting or answering questions about it that can be as powerful of marketing as standing for the camera.

 

The NFL is a different beast. We know NBA players and baseball players because we can see their faces.  NFL players are hid behind masks and most fans wouldn't recognize 80% of their own team I'd wager.

 

The entire dynamic of this and marketing the player vs team is amazingly complex and fascinating, as well.

[row_33]

Eventually one tells themself they have had enough of all of the product the NFL is currently offering.

 

[Thurmal34]

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by Thurmal34

[row_33]

16 minutes ago, Thurmal34 said:

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

 

They should rise up and do what exactly?

 

 

 

You can be first in line to show us the better way.

 

[DaggersEOD]

22 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Maybe read the thread and see what the Vets are saying

 

If you are a vet, you know better than to say you speak for all of them. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

What other employer gets money from the DOD?

 

But let's reflect. Long before kneeling for the anthem became a thing, standing along the sidelines in a uniform line with helmets under their arms was a standard practice. Never mind the often recited reports about how nobody stood for the anthem before 9/11. That's bull ****. It just wasn't a league wide rule until then. But lots of teams had a team rule that required the players to be on the field and stand in a prescribed manner while the flag was displayed and the anthem played. I attended lots of games before 9/11. Every single one of them had the players out and standing respectfully.

 

And you know what? Never, at any point until Colin Kaepernick decided to refuse to show pride in the flag (his words) did any player ever think of adhering to that team rule as "forced patriotism." What they considered it was part of their job. Their contracts explicitly state that the players will act  in a certain manner since they acknowledge the importance of the teams' and the game of football's public image. 

 

For all those years team rules requiring players to be on the field and stand respectfully for the flag were considered no more or less "forced" than any other team rule that has nothing to do with the game. Team rules requiring players to wear a suit and tie while travelling to road games were always adhered to. Nobody made a 1st amendment stink about it. Team rules requiring players to take turns signing autographs during camp were adhered to. Team rules requiring grown adults to be in their hotel rooms by 10:00 PM on game nights were adhered to, or consequences suffered. All these and many more (including standing respectfully) were simply considered standard practices agreed to when accepting employment.

 

But okay, somehow standing respectfully has become an issue that now has people comparing this so called "forced patriotism" to Nazi Germany and all sorts of other things. And many like to point to the article stating the league received $5.4 million from the DOD and saying ever since then the players have been "forced" to show their patriotism. How dare the league subject them to something that's actually been going on for decades?

 

But here's the real rub. There's a thing called the collective bargaining agreement. In that agreement, along with  numerous references that give the league and teams the ability to impose rules like standing respectfully, there's also a guideline pertaining to what's known as "all revenue." All revenue means just that. The amount of money guaranteed to go to the players in the form of wages is based on a percentage of all revenues received by the league (minus, of course, a certain number of qualifying items that are specified therein).

 

So in case we've lost anybody, this means that (roughly) 47% of that often quoted figure of $5.4 million the league received from the DOD, or, $2.538 million of those DOD dollars, was earmarked and made its way into the players' paychecks. That fact, along with the numerous references in the CBA regarding the players' agreement to certain rules, and the fact that for decades the practice of standing respectfully, if for no other reason than the public image of the league, means the teams and league absolutely have the ability to enforce such rules. And any quibbling over the subject matter of the protests, or the constitutionality of the protests, or the fairly recent practice of referring to standing respectfully as "forced patriotism," are all inconsequential.

 

Thank you. Good night.

 

Well written post.

 

It's my understanding that, unlike the NBA, the NFL didn't have any formal anthem "this is part of your job" policy prior to this recent attempt.  Of course, most sport venues starting before HS do play the anthem and ask players and fans to "please rise and gentlemen to remove their hats" (ladies wearing baseball or sun hats do likewise, unasked)  So standing respectfully facing the displayed flag (if any) is a custom most NFL athletes have been part of since grade school.  At least in this part of the country.

I'm fairly certain the owners put the "may remain in the locker room" alternative into the contract at the advice of their lawyers, simply to provide a "reasonable accomodation" for someone who claimed it was against their principles.

 

My thing with the possible influence of possible DOD money, is that teams are a business.  And businesses need to mind the bottom line.  If an employees actions may impact that bottom line, why wouldn't a business direct their employees to take different actions to avoid impact to their bottom line?

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

The "aggrieved minority group" and "protest anywhere and everywhere" pulls this beyond the scope of football-relevant political discussion, so I won't follow it up here, but I think you're mistaken in the whole premise.  Someone up thread called it right though - being criticized is actually the point of the whole protest thing.  If the protests weren't, in fact, controversial and criticized or were unconditionally permitted without criticism, they would be totally ineffectual as protests. 

 

I see a lot of media criticism as well as media support (again, maybe it's my part of the country) so I don't get the "soy based pop culture media" reference. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

2 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

It’s amusing that American workers,

time and time again, despite being taken advantage of at every turn by management, consistently side with said management rather than the labor force they are a part of. 

 

Its also amusing that people say they don’t tune in to sports for politics, yet are here proffering their political takes. 

Welcome to 1776.  Freedom is calling.  Will you answer?

13 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

So still no Forced Patriotism. I see no Anthem. No pledge at your work. No Forced Patriotism to the Nation at your job i see

 

Such a limited statement with zero context. 

 

But hey there was a fake vote that was i guess unanimous even though within 24 hours of said vote teams themselves going against said unanimous vote See Jets 

There are zero laws on the books prohibiting "forced patriotism."  So what are you talking about?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Welcome to 1776.  Freedom is calling.  Will you answer?

There are zero laws on the books prohibiting "forced patriotism."  So what are you talking about?

 

Here is where I wish one of our resident lawyers or legal experts would weigh in, but I think in a sense there may be laws on the books prohibiting just that, but they don't apply to the NFL.

 

I think employers are prohibited from imposing restrictions on employees that are extraneous to the job.  Example: a chemical plant is allowed to impose the restriction that employees wear long pants and steel toed shoes or boots because protecting feet and skin are considered appropriate to the job.  They aren't allowed to say men must wear kilts because "roooowrrrr men in kilts! hubba hubba!"  If they're hiring an accountant, they're not allowed to specify that the accountant must be able to lift 50 lbs, unless that's what the boxes of ledgers weigh and it's part of the job duties to regularly move around boxes of ledgers (dating myself).

What's the football relevance of this?  Well, the NFL is primarily an entertainment industry.   Appearances are relevant to entertainment - specific uniforms, presentation matters.    All kinds of stuff about media availability, image in the CBA.  If the owners consider that playing the anthem is part of the pre-game tradition of their entertainment, and that having players on the field respectfully acknowledge the anthem is part of the presentation/appearance their entertainment requires, then that's probably allowed just as it's allowed to make the players wear specific uniforms. 

 

Whereas if the owner of a chemical plant decided everyone should stand and recite the pledge of allegiance every morning then stand for the anthem (or wear football uniforms, or kilts), I believe the workers would have a strong legal case to object that both were extraneous to the job and should not be allowed.

The NFL included a "reasonable accommodation" for players whose principles don't allow them to stand for the anthem, by saying they may remain in the locker room.

 

Entertainment -> appearance/presentation considered relevant -> reasonable accommodation for individual principles -> not "forced patriotism"

Job where appearance/presentation not considered relevant -> could be "forced patriotism" and would likely not be legally allowed

 

Caveat that I am not a lawyer, just working off past OJT about employment law.

 

 

[nedboy7]

10 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

I'm glad you wear panties because it fits you.  The players who protest are dip *****?  asswipes?  intellectual inferiors?

You are out of line. 

Who is shoving anything down your throat? 

Do you not watch fox news?  I guess to you they are the real media? 

Seems to me you got some other underlying issue here. 

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by nedboy7

[mannc]

14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think

1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.

2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

At best, this is muddy.  You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.

1.  What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing.  They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions.  Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working.  They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football.  The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.

 

2.  I agree it’s muddy.  I don’t believe the CBA clearly addresses the issue, and what it does say also needs to be viewed through the lens of various arbitration decisions related to the CBA and the league’s ability to punish players for off-field conduct.  Despite what the CBA might say, the league’s authority in this area is not absolute.  And the answer is far from obvious.  Lawyers who have spent lots of time on this disagree about it.  Kaep’s grievance is proceeding and it might eventually answer a lot of these questions.

 

The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.  I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications. 

[bobobonators]

11 hours ago, Rob's House said:

What irks me the most about this "movement" has nothing to do with patriotism, the flag, or the anthem. The day I get my panties in a wad over some over privileged, semi-educated dip **** who wants to play the victim, remind me to go kill myself.

 

What I find most irritating is the sense of entitlement. These asswipes have a huge platform, that far outweighs that of most of their intellectual superiors, due to the celebrity status they enjoy by virtue of the fact thay they're in the NFL.

 

But for some of them that's not enough. They must also be permitted to shove it down our throats while they're at work. And our soy-based, pop culture media says "right on."

 

Apparently,  as long as you're part of an aggrieved minority group (even if you've never personally experienced "the struggle" of that group) you must be unconditionally permitted to "peacefully protest" anywhere and everywhere without risk of criticism. 

 

You dont have to be a part of an aggrieved minority group to peacefully protest the fundamental human right to not get shot down in the street. 

 

And who hasnt criticized Kaep? If anything the guy has been overly criticized. 

 

If Kaep kneeling on a television screen is shoving something down your throat i suggest you take self-help classes on how to cope with the differing opinions of others. 

 

The guy wasnt kneeling to protest the price of his latte at Starbucks; he was kneeling to give a voice to those who cant be heard or no longer have one bc theyre dead. 

[loyal2dagame]

I read through the first 8 pages of this topic and for me it solidifies my opinion even more.

This country is screwed.

To much division between the people. It's always one groups opinion vs another's,  and if you don't agree with a certain take on an issue,  you are wrong.  Then the subtle insults start.  Then the arguement breaks out. Because nobody can simply compromise during discussions anymore,  it just gets louder and goes off the rails. 

The politicians and media consistently push this crap to distract people from important issues. 

I'm a veteran and could care less if people kneel or don't stand for the flag,  anthem,  whatever. 

I stand,  hat removed, hand on heart, for my flag. In this country,  I only have to answer for me and my actions. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

15 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think

1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.

2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?

At best, this is muddy.  You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.

 

1 hour ago, mannc said:

1.  What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing.  They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions.  Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working.  They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football.  The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.

 

You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point.  I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing.  You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?" 

My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time.   The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests.  Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.

You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others.  But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general.  The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL.  (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests).  The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."

 

IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL". 

 

You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".

 

1 hour ago, mannc said:

The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.  I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications. 

 

I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court.  That would not help public perception.

[mannc]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

 

 

You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point.  I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing.  You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?" 

My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time.   The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests.  Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.

You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others.  But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general.  The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL.  (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests).  The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."

 

IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL". 

 

You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".

 

 

I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court.  That would not help public perception.

I guess I just disagree that the players are “co-opting” the owner’s property.  How are they doing so?  They are refusing to participate in a compelled act of false patriotism.  Not the same thing at all.  Whether the owners have the right to enforce the policy under the banner of the “best interests of the league” clause is an open question.

 

My guess is that the lawyers told the owners the policy stands a good chance of passing legal muster, but no guarantees.  Even if they lose, they can still win the public relations battle because they “tried to uphold the flag”.

Edited May 26, 2018 by mannc

[PastaJoe]

If a player from both teams kneels, are they offsetting penalties, so no difference except for fine?

[26CornerBlitz]

10 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

If a player from both teams kneels, are they offsetting penalties, so no difference except for fine?

 

The idea of a penalty was nor adopted.  Both teams could get fined by the NFL in that scenario with players subject to being fined by their respective teams. 

 

The NFL would have been better off leaving the issue alone as the protests were dying by the time the season ended.  They only made things worse with the unilateral move that enacted this new policy as part of league operations. 

[Happy]

15 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

The NFL would have been better off leaving the issue alone as the protests were dying by the time the season ended.  They only made things worse with the unilateral move that enacted this new policy as part of league operations. 

 

Perhaps the protests were dying toward the end of the season, but it would not take much to revive them - statement by a political figure, social justice warrior, etc.  IMO, the league did the right thing (finally) by enacting fines for not standing during the NA.  The NFL could have nipped this in the bud last September by not being so passive when the kneeling started.